coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 14 May 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Youth and Sport concerning Olympic annuity as being the coach of an Olympic medal winner. He was informed that according to the legal regulation in force, he could not request the annuity as it was the medal winner who should make a proposition for the beneficiary of such annuity. In the meanwhile the Ministry established the annuity for another coach.
6.  On 16 August 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted an objection to the Ministry’s decision on the applicant’s behalf, which was dismissed by the Minister on 6 October 2001.
7.  The Prosecutor’s Office sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant intervened in the proceedings. The Regional Court dismissed the action on 8 January 2003. In the review proceedings the Supreme Court quashed the Minister’s decision and remitted the case to the administrative authority on 1 June 2004.
8.  In the resumed proceedings the administrative authorities dismissed the applicant’s request on both levels. The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. It dismissed his action on 14 May 2007.
9.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Finding that the applicant should have initiated the action against the Minister, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings on 25 June 2008.
10.  The applicant therefore again initiated the judicial review of the administrative decisions mentioned in paragraph 8 above before the Budapest Regional Court, this time bringing the action against the Minister. His action was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2010.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Nyírtelek.
5.  In May 2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a hospital before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court. She claimed that her son’s death in October 1999 was due to his inefficient treatment by the hospital’s doctors. In March 2001 the Regional Court gave judgment, finding that no causal link have been proven between the respondent’s alleged omissions and the death. This conclusion was upheld by the appellate bench of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2003.
6.  On 19 February 2003 the applicant requested the re-opening of the case, which was dismissed by the Regional Court, without an examination on the merits, on 7 May 2003. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court on 3 September 2003.
7.  On 7 May 2004 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of criminal proceedings initiated against the doctors and the general practitioner for reckless endangerment resulting in death. The Budapest Court of Appeal, however, established that it had not been necessary to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, as the subject matter of the two proceedings is different. It therefore ordered the continuation of the civil proceedings on 15 October 2004.
8.  On 23 February 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 17 January 2008.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 8 July 2010. The applicant submitted a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30 March 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gyál.
5.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant’s former husband brought an action against the applicant and others before the Dabas District Court, seeking the termination of co-ownership. The court appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 1 March 2001.
6.  On 9 October 2001 the District Court gave judgment, which was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 26 March 2002.
7.  In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court delivered its judgment on 24 June 2004. On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court gave judgment on 14 April 2005.
8.  On 8 November 2005 the Supreme Court, acting in a single judge formation, dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance decision had not been unlawful to such an extent that had bearing on the merits of the case.
6.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Taraclia.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 13 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 7 August 2008 he was found guilty as charged by the Străşeni District Court and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
9.  That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 22 October 2008 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 25 February 2009.
10.  On 17 October 2007 the applicant was placed in detention in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. He was transferred to Codru Psychiatric Hospital on 27 November 2007 and returned to Prison no. 13 on 18 December 2007. He was transferred to Prison no. 5 in Cahul on 18 January 2009. Since 21 January 2009 the applicant has been detained in Prison no. 1 in Taraclia.
11.  The applicant described the conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 as follows: he had been held in a 12 square metre cell together with up to five other detainees and could only stretch his muscles during a short walk outside his cell; there was no functioning ventilation; the cell was damp and full of parasitic insects; in winter it was cold. The food was insufficient and virtually inedible.
12.  According to the Government, the applicant has been detained in Prison no. 13 in the following cells:
- cell no. 28, measuring 18.5 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;
- cell no. 39, measuring 13.78 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;
- cell no. 40, measuring 13.78 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;
- cell no. 47, measuring 9.1 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;
- cell no. 48, measuring 12.22 square metres and designed to accommodate eight persons;
- cell no. 19, measuring 34.8 square metres and designed to accommodate fourteen persons.
4.  The applicants Mr Józef Bańczyk and Mr Jan Sztuka were born in 1941 and in 1974 respectively and live in Bienkowice.
5.  On 24 November 2003 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). R.H., M.O., J.R. and M.B were charged with fraud and embezzlement.
6.  On an unspecified date between 17 December 2003 and 10 March 2004 the applicants joined the proceedings as a civil party and lodged a claim for compensation against the defendants (powództwo adhezyjne).
7.  The bill of indictment was only read out on 14 September 2005. In the following years 8 hearings were adjourned or cancelled due to various reasons (the health problems of one of the accused, illness of a defence lawyers, maternity leave of one of the trial judges, etc.).
8.  On 14 September 2011 the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court acquitted M.O., J.R. and M.B of all charges. On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of R.H., who had died in April 2011. As regards the applicants’ civil claims, they were left without examination.
9.  On 19 January 2012 the applicants appealed against the first-instance judgment.
10.  On 12 June 2012 the Opole Regional Court upheld the challenged judgment.
11.  On 14 April 2009 the applicants lodged with the Opole Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
12.  On 15 June 2009 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that there were no significant periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court had been responsible. The court held that the case no. II K 815/03 was a complex one. There were four co-accused, who faced numerous charges. 136 witnesses needed to be heard. Furthermore, the duration of proceedings was extended due to R.H.’s health problems, which necessitated many hearings to be postponed, and due to a maternity leave of one of the trial judges.
4.  Upon a private company’s request, in May 1996 L. K., a forest engineer employed by the company, made an estimation of the amount of damages caused to the company’s territory by wild animals under the responsibility of a hunting society. Subsequently, on 1 August 1996 the company brought an action in compensation against the hunting society, the members of which were the applicants.
5.  In March 1997 the hunting society was dissolved. The proceedings were discontinued on 10 June 1997, pending the identification of successors to the proceedings.
6.  On 6 March 1999 the proceedings continued, as the plaintiff designated the applicants as successors to the proceedings.
7.  The Kiskőrös District Court appointed an expert, J. K., to establish the value of the hunters’ house. The expert filed an opinion on 30 November 2000.
8.  On 9 July 2003 the Kiskőrös District Court found for the plaintiff. This judgment was quashed by the Csongrád County Regional Court on 23 February 2005.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, due to the bias declared by the judges in Bács-Kiskun County, the case was heard by the Szeged District Court. The court requested L. K. to submit a further expert report to establish the amount of damages caused. He filed an opinion on 24 January 2006.
10.  On 3 March 2006 the first-instance court gave judgment, finding for the plaintiff. The applicants appealed, arguing - among others - that they had not received the copy of minutes of the hearing of 28 October 2005 on time, and questioning the impartiality of L. K.
11.  On appeal, the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. Concerning the minutes of the hearing, the second-instance court pointed out that the District Court had no legal obligation to send them the minutes automatically. They had the options of requesting copies either by post or in person at the court. The applicants had requested the copies for the first time on 11 January 2006, following which the court had sent the minutes on 13 January 2006 despite the fact that the applicants had not paid the copy fees. The delivery of the mail sent according to the rules had not been successful. Following the repeated request of the applicants on 16 February 2006, the copies had been sent once again on 21 February 2006. Moreover, the court pointed out that the respondents had been present at the hearing, where they had the opportunity to take notes, and could have submitted observations within eight days to L. K.’s expert report, delivered to them on 13 February 2006. As to the impartiality of L. K., the court emphasised that he had been the only expert to see the damages on-site in 1996. Ten years after the occurrence of the damages, appointing a further forensic expert to proceed on the basis of documentary evidence would have been futile in the court’s opinion. In addition, L. K. had followed the court’s instructions when preparing the expert report.
12.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the final judgment on 10 May 2007. This decision was served on the applicants on 14 June 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Debrecen.
5.  On 10 April 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the predecessor of the Hungarian National Fiduciary Private Limited Company (“ÁPV Rt”) before the Budapest Regional Court.
6.  The case was transferred to the Pest Central District Court. It appointed an expert, who filed an opinion in January 1995. On 4 November 1996 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 12 December 1997.
7.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 27 April 1998. This decision was quashed on appeal on 19 January 2000.
8.  The District Court’s judgment of 14 July 2004 was again quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005.
9.  Finally the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment on 25 April 2007.
5.  The applicant lives in Budapest.
6.  On 13 October 2008 the applicant applied to the Budapest Police Department for authorisation for a political demonstration in front of Parliament, in Kossuth Square, a vast open area traditionally used for political demonstrations. The declared objectives of the demonstration were, among others, commemoration of the revolution of 1956 and of the tumultuous events in Budapest in 2006 as well as to call attention to the perceived absence of legal certainty in the country. The event was scheduled for Friday, 17 October 2008.
7.  According to Parliament’s official and public activity log available on the Internet, the only event taking place on that date in Parliament’s building was a conference and open day organised by the Hungarian Alliance for Enhancing Female Careers under the title “Employment – Equality of Chances – Competitiveness”. No parliamentary session was scheduled.
8.  On 14 October 2008 the Police Department proposed to the applicant that the planned demonstration be held in a secluded part of Kossuth Square, rather than its entirety. The applicant refused this suggestion.
9.  On 15 October 2008 the Police Department forbade the demonstration. It was of the view that the planned demonstration would ‘gravely endanger’ the functioning of Parliament, which was a legitimate ground for prohibiting it under section 8(1) of the Assembly Act. In particular, the speeches and music – belonging in the programme and amplified – might disturb the MPs’ work. Moreover, the participants – whose number was estimated at 150 to 200 persons – might physically impede the MPs’ driving in and out of Parliament’s car park, which, in the authority’s view, amounted to restricting their freedom of movement and to inhibiting the functioning of the organ of the people’s representation.
10.  The applicant applied for judicial review. He submitted in particular that another demonstration with an agenda identical to his but scheduled for Wednesday, 15 October 2008, had not been forbidden on exactly the same location; this fact showed, in his view, discrimination against him and his planned event. According to Parliament’s official and public activity log available on the Internet, on 15 October 2008 five parliamentary commissions were in session.
11.  On 22 October 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his complaint, endorsing in essence the Police Department’s reasoning.
7.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sheffield, the United Kingdom, where he moved in February 2010.
8.  In 1998 the applicant, who had enrolled at a university in the State of Missouri, entered the United States of America on a student visa. However, he later abandoned his studies and took up paid employment. In January 2000 the authorities, considering that he had thereby infringed the terms and conditions of his visa, opened deportation proceedings against him. He was deported to Bulgaria on 29 October 2003.
9.  Meanwhile, in April 2000 the applicant’s mother married an American national. In May 2000 she became a permanent resident of the United States of America and later became a United States national. The applicant’s brother also resided permanently there.
10.  By an order of 29 October 2003, the Head of the Border Police Service of the Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs, acting pursuant to section 76(6) of the Identity Papers Act 1998 (see paragraph 17 below), and having regard to a letter from the Ministry’s International Cooperation Division, with which was enclosed a letter from the embassy of the United States of America, imposed a two-year travel ban on the applicant, starting on 20 October 2003, and directed the competent authorities to seize his passport. Accordingly, on 4 November 2003 the Burgas police ordered the applicant to surrender his passport.
11.  The applicant sought judicial review of the order, arguing, inter alia, that the administrative authorities had erred in not taking into account his personal situation and choosing to exercise their discretion against him.
12.  On 11 May 2004 the Sofia City Court dismissed the application. It held, inter alia, that in issuing the order the authorities had taken into account all the relevant facts, namely, that the applicant had been deported and that the Bulgarian authorities had been informed of this. The reasons for the deportation and the personal circumstances of the applicant were immaterial, as was the possibility of his receiving another visa allowing him to re‑enter the United States of America. The order had been consistent with the aim of the law, which was to impede Bulgarian citizens who had breached the immigration rules of foreign countries from travelling freely.
13.  The applicant appealed on points of law, reiterating his argument that the authorities should have taken account of his individual circumstances.
14.  In a final judgment of 30 March 2005 (реш. № 2952 от 30 март 2005 г. по адм. д. № 6206/2004 г., ВАС, V о.), the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It held, inter alia, that section 76(6) of the Identity Papers Act 1998 gave the authorities discretion to impose or refrain from imposing the impugned measure, and their choice in this matter was not reviewable by the courts. In the case of the applicant, the authorities had had regard to all the relevant circumstances and had determined that the measure was called for.
4.  The applicants, Ms Lilyana Veselinova Dimitrova, born in 1952, and her son, Mr Yulian Dimitrov Dimitrov, born in 1983, live in Sofia.
5.  On 4 February 1998 their husband and father, Mr D.D., an aircraft maintenance technician, died in an air crash in Portugal.
6.  On an unknown date, not later than mid-1999, the applicants received an indemnity of 10,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) (the equivalent of 10,000 former German marks) under the liability insurance of Mr D.D.’s employer.
7.  On 10 December 1998 the applicants brought an action against Mr D.D.’s employer in connection with the occupational accident. They claimed a total of 200,000 new Bulgarian levs (BGN) (approximately 102,250 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages.
8.  The Sofia City Court conducted the first hearing on 21 June 1999. It ordered an expert report and postponed the hearing for the gathering of evidence. In the period from 24 January 2000 to 11 June 2001 it conducted five hearings, during which it questioned witnesses, admitted the expert report and a report from the Portuguese authorities which had investigated the air crash, and gathered other evidence.
9.  In a judgment of 30 August 2001 the Sofia City Court partly granted the applicant’s claim, awarding BGN 6,000 to the first applicant and BGN 7,500 to the second applicant, together with the statutory interest since the date of the air crash. It found, on the basis of the expert report and the report from the Portuguese authorities, that the accident had been due to a technical failure. However, certain acts and omissions of the crew, including Mr D.D., had partly contributed to the crash. The court qualified the behaviour of the crew as gross negligence and held that this called for a reduction of the compensation to be awarded to the applicants. The parties appealed.
10.  The Sofia Appeal Court conducted hearings on 12 April and 20 September 2002. In a judgment of 25 October 2002, which was rectified for errors by an additional judgment of 2 January 2003, it increased the award to BGN 13,000 for each applicant (EUR 13,300 in total). It ordered that the statutory interest should be paid as from the date of the incident until settlement. It held that Mr D.D.’s acts and omissions on the day of the accident could not be qualified as gross negligence and therefore no reduction of the compensation was justified. In assessing the amount of the non-pecuniary damages, the court took into account the insurance indemnity received by the applicants, the poor state of health of the first applicant and the fact that the second applicant had been underage at the time of the accident. The parties appealed on points of law.
11.  On 7 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation suspended the enforcement of the judgment of the Sofia Appeal Court pending the outcome of the proceedings on points of law.
12.  On 31 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing. In a final judgment of 14 December 2005 it upheld the judgment of the Sofia Appeal Court.
5. The applicant, Mr Ivan Milić, was born in 1966 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.
6.  On 20 June 2002 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ordered that the applicant be reinstated by the Clinical Centre of Montenegro (Kliničko bolnički Centar Crne Gore), a State-run medical institution.
7.  On 4 February 2003 this judgment became final, and on 16 December 2003 it was confirmed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica at third instance.
8.  On 23 April 2003 the Clinical Centre of Montenegro informed the applicant that it could not comply with the judgment in question, but would rather seek an alternative solution.
9.  On 22 May 2003 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order, which decision was confirmed on 26 June 2003.
10.  On 19 August 2003 the Clinical Centre of Montenegro concluded an agreement with the Special Hospital in Risan, also a State-run medical institution, whereby the latter accepted the applicant as its employee.
11.  On 30 September 2003 the applicant informed the State Prosecutor that he did not approve of this arrangement.
12.  On 17 October 2003 the Special Hospital in Risan issued a decision to the effect that the applicant would become its employee as of 30 October 2003.
13.  On 20 October 2003 the applicant received this decision.
14.  On 21 October 2009, as submitted by the Montenegrin Government, the applicant concluded an Agreement on Termination of Employment with the Clinical Centre of Montenegro whereby his employment had been terminated as from 3 February 2003 and both parties waived any further claims in this regard.
15.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant withdrew his enforcement request.
16.  On 5 November 2009 the Court of First Instance terminated the enforcement proceedings and all the enforcement activities which had been carried out in that regard. On 17 November 2009 this decision became final.
17.  On 6 May 2004, upon the applicant’s separate claim, the Court of First Instance in Podgorica ordered the Clinical Centre of Montenegro to pay the applicant 4,456 euros (“EUR”) for salary arrears for the period between September 2001 and 3 February 2003. This judgment was upheld by the High Court on 5 October 2004. It would appear from the case file that this judgment was enforced on an unspecified date thereafter.
18.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant started to work in the Clinical Centre of Serbia for a period of nine months. It would appear from the case file that on an unspecified date thereafter his temporary employment was transformed into a permanent one.